El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Yeah. Life as we knew it is over until we deal with this thing. And we can’t get back to any kind of normality without herd immunity. As it stands, people can’t go to school, can’t go to work, can’t socialise, can’t travel. The vulnerable will need to cocoon until this thing is over (that’s the way it stands right now) and anyone living with a vulnerable person will also need to effectively cocoon to protect the vulnerable person in the household (that’s also the way it stands right now). If we never find a vaccine or never achieve herd immunity, then those vulnerable people and the people they live with, will have to cocoon for the rest of their lives if thy continue to live with a vulnerable person (that’s also a the way things stand right now). Without herd immunity through a vaccine or people surviving the disease, life will continue under the current lockdown indefinitely.
khalessi wrote: » So people with asthma, diabetes, kidney related issues, immunocompromised due to medications or disease etc, the aged, CF, lung conditions, ulcerative colitis, crohns all stay home It will be a large part of the population
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » We will be living with restrictions (not full lockdown) until herd immunity is achieved either through a vaccine or people surviving the disease. I was responding to a poster who asked about vulnerable people and those who live with a vulnerable people. Those specific people need to stay cocooned until there’s herd immunity. The rest of will need to become immune one way or the other. For clarity, I think they will relax some restrictions to increase transmission and tighten restrictions to make sure the health service can deal with the acute cases.
Stateofyou wrote: » Go on so. Give us another example. Maybe a general surgeon this time is going to remove your entire internal organ system instead of performing a simple appendectomy that's needed. But you objected instead of blindly following "the expert" and therefore saved your own life. :pac:
bladespin wrote: » Your post seemed to imply we would be living in lock-down until herd immunity or a vaccine is found, apols if I misunderstood.
castletownman wrote: » And as you mentioned, if you are feeling unwell with symptoms similar to Covid, stay the eff at home too. Make it mandatory for employers to provide sick pay in that scenario.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Why do you think I didn’t understand that? I’ve said loads of times that they will loosen and tighten restrictions to keep transmissions at or close to the max rate the health service can deal with acute cases.
bladespin wrote: » I think you're misunderstanding the real reason for the lockdown, not to protect people specifically, more to protect the medical service so it's not overwhelmed in a short burst: flatten the curve to it can treat greater numbers over a longer time, thereby protecting people in general. That's the way I see it anyway
CtevenSrowder wrote: » You've completely missed the point of what's gone on.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » The best case shorter term is that we find an effective treatment, whilst we wait for (hopefully) a vaccine down the line.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Without herd immunity through a vaccine or people surviving the disease, life will continue under the current lockdown indefinitely.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Yeah. Life as we knew it is over until we deal with this thing. And we can’t get back to any kind of normality without herd immunity. As it stands, people can’t go to school, can’t go to work, can’t socialise, can’t travel. The vulnerable will need to cocoon until this thing is over (that’s the way it stands right now) and anyone living with a vulnerable person will also need to effectively cocoon to protect the vulnerable person I the household (that’s also the way it stands right now). If we never find a vaccine or never achieve herd immunity, then those vulnerable people and the people they live with, will have to cocoon for the rest of their lives if thy continue to live with a vulnerable person (that’s also a the way things stand right now). Without herd immunity through a vaccine or proper surviving the disease, life will continue under the current lockdown indefinitely.
stephenjmcd wrote: » https://m.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/lockdowns-should-be-lifted-in-two-week-stages-to-stem-covid-19-spread-who-39129741.html Latest WHO guidance, EU issued something similar this morning also. Lots of realisation that nations have done relatively well to slow the spread and use the time to build capacity but that these restrictions just isn't feasible now long term.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Okay but that effectively means lockdown carries on for a large proportion of the population: kids can't go to school, young adults can't go out to work, no visiting friends/relatives etc.
Stateofyou wrote: » Just because Kiki, along with myself and MILLIONS of others who are thinking for ourselves and agreeing to comply and have decided to trust the experts guiding us because it makes sense to us, is not in any sense of the word BLINDLY following. It's now literally, the law. You are blindly choosing to not defer to experts who know better than you. See how that works?
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » That would be wide open to abuse including people with just a runny nose or a mild headache who could claim they were incapacitated. I know that happens as it is but those who abuse the current system would just feel empowered to do it more often.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Have you been following the thread? Kiki when asked what she'd do in the future said she's defer to the experts. She doesn't yet know what the experts propose to do. That is blindly following. So literally she is doing that.
Stateofyou wrote: » Literally no one is doing that. Everyone here is capable of and do think for themselves. Give over.
seamus wrote: » This my feeling too. We will develop a social stigma about sickness. In the same way that we'd never consider going to a social gathering with dirty clothes and stinking to high heaven, we will stay at home if we feel at all unwell. And likewise people who do wander around in public blowing their nose, coughing and spluttering will be treated with disdain and given a wide berth like someone with BO. We've all done it in the past, gone out with a bit of a cold, visited parents and relations even though we know we're not feeling the best. That will all come to an end, and we'll start to cop on and actually just take to bed for a few days until it's passed.
Cyrus wrote: » what isnt clear is how many people are dying incrementally. a lot of people die every day, Covid19 or not. The reporting is deliberately obfuscating
facehugger99 wrote: » Over 60,000 people will die in Ireland naturally over 2 years - how many of your 15,000 deaths will be part of these deaths anyway. A huge amount given the demographics of the deaths at present I'd suggest.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Yes, it is absurd, intentionally so, to drive home why experts shouldn't be automatically defered to, and why one should question and think for themselves.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » But to be fair, if you live with a vulnerable person who should be cocooning, then the whole family unit needs to cocoon to stop the virus entering the house.
seamus wrote: » Employers won't have a choice. Forcing a sick employee to come to work will be made a very serious offence.
seamus wrote: » It's complicated. Population density is an issue, but so too is access to healthcare and maintenance of records.
Stateofyou wrote: » The scenario of a dentist pulling all your teeth due to one cavity is an example beyond logical thinking. I believe these experts and gov't leaders are questioned by journalists on the REGULAR.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » It wasn't my anology. I just added to it. Regardless what I said is not dumb. The point is just because someone is an expert it doesn't mean they should automatically be deferred to and not questioned.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » But the difference now is only a small proportion of the family members of the vulnerable actually have the virus, and you're proposing these people should actively seek to become infected to achieve 'herd immunity'. So what happens to the vulnerable family members they are living with in that scenario? Do they just have to take their chances?
Stateofyou wrote: » Sorry but that analogy is dumber than dumb. A Dentist, an expert trained in oral health, is not going to remove all your teeth because you have one cavity. The black and white thinking here is yours. :rolleyes:
